329. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State 1

390. Subj: Chirep in SC.

As expected, Amb Farah (Somalia) raised Chirep on point of order at beginning of first SC meeting of 1971. His speech was carefully reasoned but pro-forma attack on right of GRC to represent China in SC. Reps of Syria, USSR, France, Poland and Italy spoke in support of Farah and Burundi would have but did not since Amb Terence away from NY. GRC and US spoke in rebuttal.
Farah’s statement expressed his del’s “strong objections” to acceptance of credentials of Amb Liu (GRC) and recalled Algerian move to have SC consider credentials of all SC members in 1968. However, he made no procedural moves, simply expressing desire to return to the matter “at a future date, after consulting like-minded delegations”.
Remainder of Farah speech was routine re-hashing of arguments that GRC has no right to sit in UN and attempt to refute arguments that PRC did not want or was not fit for UN membership. Farah spoke confidently of growing awareness of injustice being done to PRC, which applied to take China seat as early as 1949. He referred to passage of IQ as dishonest procedural device to thwart will of GA majority and quoted statement by Senator McGovern as evidence of growing public demand for new approach to Chirep problem.
Speaking as President of Council, Yost “took note” of Farah’s statement and said his govt’s position would be reflected in SC records. Reverting to role as US Rep, Yost totally rejected as unfounded Farah’s allegations concerning so-called US aggression in Indochina.
Tomeh (Syria) said he was in full agreement with Farah’s remarks and agreed that GRC Rep’s credentials subject to objection under SC rules of procedure.
Malik (USSR) made brief, pro-forma statement along lines of his last-minute intervention on Chirep at 25th GA. He said Sov position on Chirep “well-known and unchanged” and called for GRC expulsion from all UN organs.
Kosciusko-Morizet (France) briefly said he fully shared views of Farah and had no doubt Chinese seat belonged to PRC.
Kulaga (Poland) chimed in with statement which appeared more enthusiastic than Malik’s.
Vinci (Italy) simply noted that “GOI shares views of previous speakers on Chirep in UN”.
Liu (China) made relatively mild statement arguing that SC not place for Chirep debate and affirming that GRC is authentic voice of people of China.
Speaking as Representative of US, Yost gave statement prepared by Dept stating that Liu’s credentials approved in 1962 and not objected to since, and recalling GA Res 396 (V) pointing out that GA was proper place to discuss Chirep.
Comment: As Farah is aware that he does not have the votes to carry procedural motion on Chirep in present SC, we expect we have heard last of this question for a time.
  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, UN 6 CHICOM. Limited Official Use. Repeated to Taipei, Hong Kong, Bujumbura, Mogadiscio, Tokyo, London, Paris, and Rome.